DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Speeding and other criminal offences
*****************************************************
#Post#: 113987--------------------------------------------------
What is the date of the original requirement?
DIR By: coffee pot
Date: March 22, 2026, 4:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
My daughter has received a reminder letter from Kent Police
about an alleged offence of excess speed in a 40 on 8th February
2026. She has not received an NIP and her V5C and driving
licence both bear her current address. The reminder letter is
dated 17 March and she opened it on 21 March as she was away.
Inter alia, it states in the usual convoluted Police speak, "You
are reminded of your legal obligation to supply these details
(i.e. S172 driver details) within 28 days of the date of the
original requirement."
What is this date? Is it 28 days from the date of the offence,
14 days later or some other date?
#Post#: 113992--------------------------------------------------
Re: What is the date of the original requirement?
DIR By: NewJudge
Date: March 22, 2026, 6:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It is within 28 days beginning on the date on which the original
notice was served. That date of service is presumed to be two
working days after it was posted.
#Post#: 113993--------------------------------------------------
Re: What is the date of the original requirement?
DIR By: coffee pot
Date: March 22, 2026, 6:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Many thanks. That means she won't know that date and how likely
she is to have to make a statutory declaration to the mags until
she has contacted the office.
#Post#: 113997--------------------------------------------------
Re: What is the date of the original requirement?
DIR By: NewJudge
Date: March 22, 2026, 7:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
A statutory declaration will not be involved.
If the police decide to prosecute her for failing to respond to
the request, she can either plead guilty or defend the charge on
the basis that she did not receive the original request. To do
that she will have to plead not guilty, face a trial and give
evidence in court under oath or affirmation.
I would imagine if she contacts the police and explains the
situation they may accept a late nomination. I think that would
be the better course of action, especially as she is now aware
of the requirement.
#Post#: 114001--------------------------------------------------
Re: What is the date of the original requirement?
DIR By: andy_foster
Date: March 22, 2026, 8:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The legal requirement is to provide the required information
within 28 days beginning with (or 27 days from) the date of
service of the notice requiring the information. Any such
notice, if properly posted, is deemed served (delivered) 2
working days after posting, unless and until the contrary is
proven (on the balance of probabilities).
If the first notice was not served (as a finding of fact by the
court), then the next question would seem to be whether the
reminder is capable of constituting an s. 172 requirement in and
of itself - in which case the 28 day clock would start ticking
on Match 19th, assuming that it was properly posted by first
class post on March 17th and there was no way to rebut the
presumption of service.
Where a lawful s. 172 requirement has already been made, a
reminder has no status in law (albeit from Scottish case law),
other than a nicety either reminding the addressee of the
requirement, or offering another bite at the cherry. Where no
lawful s. 172 requirement has been made, a notice intended as a
reminder would constitute *the* requirement, if it contains a
requirement under s. 172. I avoid using the term "original
requirement", because it is misleading. There can legally only
be one requirement
Assuming that she is the RK of the vehicle in question, the
original NIP would have had to have been posted between 9th
-18th Feb and deemed served 11th - 20th Feb - with the 28 day
clock expiring on 10th - 19th March, so a reminder posted on
17th March by first class post would be deemed to be served
either on the last day that the response was due to be received,
or 1 - 8 days after the 28 days had already expired. Which would
make the reminder seemingly somewhat pointless.
N.B. If you must post on behalf of others, please at least try
to avoid cherry-picking the parts of the notices that you
consider relevant or curious. The purpose of this forum is to
help motorists facing motoring allegations, not to help their
mum interpret a poorly written phrase from, a civilian
department within a police force, in isolation.
#Post#: 114011--------------------------------------------------
Re: What is the date of the original requirement?
DIR By: coffee pot
Date: March 22, 2026, 10:47 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you; I know how busy this forum is and how few dedicated
respondents with knowledge there are, so I tried simply to ask
the question I needed help with. PS please don't assume - I am
not her mother.
#Post#: 114020--------------------------------------------------
Re: What is the date of the original requirement?
DIR By: NewJudge
Date: March 22, 2026, 1:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote ---
> If the first notice was not served (as a finding of fact by
the court), then the next question would seem to be whether the
reminder is capable of constituting an s. 172 requirement in and
of itself - in which case the 28 day clock would start ticking
on Match 19th,
--- End Quote ---
The problem is, Andy, that she will not know the answer to the
first question until after the deadline to respond to the second
request (or “reminder" – call it what you will) has passed
(there is no way any prosecution will reach court for trial by
16th April).
So whether the court find the first notice to have been properly
served or the second, if she does nothing she will have failed
to respond to either. To be acquitted she will have to rely on
the court finding:
That the first notice was not served (reasonably possible, but
not something that I would depend on) and
That either the second request was not served (virtually
impossible because on her own admission she has it) or
That it did not meet the requirements of s172 (we don’t know
because we haven’t seen it).
It’s my view that to rely on one of those occurring is not a
chance I would take. The consequences of a s172 conviction are
severe, especially if the driver is a young person. I suggest
she engages with the police by making a late nomination. It
seems the police are prepared to accept that as they have
bothered to send a reminder.
#Post#: 114069--------------------------------------------------
Re: What is the date of the original requirement?
DIR By: coffee pot
Date: March 23, 2026, 5:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
She has spoken to the traffic office today and they have granted
an extension, and will be emailing her the NIP.
"This happens all the time", she was told.
Thank you to those who assisted me with the specific legal point
I was querying.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1